I agree that having players who waste chances is not a good thing, and it irritated the hell out of me the last 3 seasons or so. But people seem to assume that when a striker doesn't meet the required number of goals (not sure what that number is) that he therefore lacks talent and will never score goals. People also seem to think that certain strikers simply lack the gene to score goals and don't consider that it could be anything to do with other conditions. People like Altidore prove that theory to be bollocks. Simpson is a great example, he didn't score for months so everyone decided it's because he was crap, ignoring the fact he wasn't actually missing chances, he was just spending entire games with his back to goal, creating for others and as such, was something like our 2nd top assister all season.
No not at all. In the modern game all players have to have a decent all-round game and if a striker has a big positive impact on the team but, for whatever reason, rarely scores goals he's still doing a good job. Every player is there simply to play as well as he can and in the manner that his manager tells him to do.
I guess that's fair enough then. I didn't really consider the players doing what their manager tells them to do, I always thought it was more down to natural ability. Going back to the OP, if either were available for good wages, I'd take them (Petric more so.)
Does that mean that Steve Bruce told Sone Aluko, Jay-Alistaire Simpson and Aaron McLean to miss a load of sitters?
Like to point out that loads of clubs are like this. E.G. Chelsea with Lampard and a better example, where would spurs have finished if not for Gareth Bale this season? Top goal scorer by a country mile, ten better than Defoe and none of their other players got more than 5/6.
People say this about Man Utd with RVP as well, but if Bale or RVP weren't there, someone else who scores goals would be.
Yes but those people are stupid. Man U have Hernandez, Rooney and Welbeck who pitch in with goals too. Spurs' only players that hit double figures last season were Bale and Defoe and they didn't do too badly did they?
He certainly told Simpson to play most of his game a long way away from the goal, which was the single biggest reason he hardly scored in the 2nd half of the season.
Which makes you think, if that was the case, considering Simpsons all round play aside from the goals department was top class, why did Bruce release him? Because he can't score. It's the only reason.
Probably because Bruce feels as though Simpson could benefit from more game time and wants to sign a couple more strikers
Because, having won promotion, we're likely to bring in at least two new strikers plus Fryatt. If it was true that he can't score, he wouldn't have got 6 in the first few weeks of the season.
He got 6 goals by about September time, before everyone pretended it didn't happen because it didn't suit their daft logic about 'goalscorers' and 'non-goalscorers'.
He got 6 goals by about September time, before everyone pretended it didn't happen because it didn't suit their daft logic about 'goalscorers' and 'non-goalscorers'.
1 goal in 22 odd games is nowhere near good enough for a striker in the Championship. He was fully justifying his call up in those starting months, but he lost his confidence and began to stutter. If he'd finished with 12-15 goals (which he would've done had he kept up his form) there wouldn't have been a problem, but his hold up alone just wasn't doing enough for me.
All of which is irrelevant, because my point was simply that the Simpson who scored 6 in the first month or so was the same player who scored in his next 30 odd games or whatever it was, not that Simpson is an amazing player. That proves that it isn't just a case "X is a goalscorer but Y isn't." There are many other factors which can affect it and the same player might be scoring for fun one year but not at all the next. The same thing has happened with Rooney and Van Persie at times in their careers. The same argument can be used with Altidore; everyone thought he was **** because he only scored once all season for us, but he's gone and scored a ****-tonne since then.
Yeah but it's only in retrospect that you see a player improve. Nobody knew Altidore was going to have a crap season with us and then go on to be one of the most prolific strikers in Holland, in the same way that we can't predict if Simpson will bang them in for somebody else. I said at Christmas time that he needed loaning out to get game time, as his confidence had clearly gone. You just can't justify having a striker in team who has a scoring record like Simpson did last season. Would you have a goalkeeper in the team who wasn't the best shot stopper but the rest of his game was brilliant; and as a result conceded an average of 2 goals a game for 31 games because he couldn't dive? No, of course not. You're right that circumstances affect players, but Simpson was in pretty much the same circumstances for half the season and failed to score. I'm not saying he's a **** player, I'm saying his contribution as a striker just wasn't good enough; if he was playing behind the front two, it would've made more sense in my opinion.
Actually, I was being factually correct. He scored his 6th goal on the 5th March 2013. I'm sorry this doesn't support your stance, but unless I miscounted, for which I apologise in advance, he had only scored 4 times by the end of September.
